Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[avb3]

A number of posts have been deleted. Keep the personal attacks out of the discussion.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The difference between acting and not acting to limit or reduce human CO2 emissions is projected to be a global temperature rise by 2100 that's over an order of magnitude greater than your 1/5 of a degree.

So, yeah, you're in error.

Ah, I see the problem. You are confusing your opinion with data. For an explanation of why it is you are in error, perhaps read this paper: Impact of Current Climate Proposals - Lomborg - 2015 - Global Policy - Wiley Online Library

Or, if you prefer the author's description of his paper, you can read it here: Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) | Bjorn Lomborg

In it, you will see the following data driven graph:

And, you might find this graph of interest, since it describes what can be accomplished if warmist loons do everything they say the want to do in terms of carbon reduction, at the cost of trillions:



So, since you appear to be wrong, would you like to acknowledge your error as I did when I made a bone head decimal mistake, or would you prefer to pretend that reality is whatever you decide it should be?

Let me guess which you will pick....

[mr_f]

Lomborg (2015) suffers from a fundamental methodological flaw which means that it could not fulfil its aim, stated in the ‘Abstract’, to investigate “the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030”.
Projections of global mean surface temperature for the period up to 2100 are based on cumulative annual global emissions of greenhouse gases up to the end of the century. While Lomborg (2015) purports to analyse the temperature changes associated with policies affecting emissions up to 2030, the author fails to acknowledge that the temperature projections to 2100 are determined primarily by assumptions that are made about cumulative annual global emissions over the 70-year period after 2030, rather than cumulative annual emissions during the period up to 2030.

It is for this reason that Lomborg (2015) projects that his “optimistic World INDCS” scenario means a rise in global mean surface temperature of 4.5°C by 2100, with the “pessimistic World INDCs” leading to an even bigger rise. The overwhelming majority of this warming is due to the assumptions by Lomborg (2015) about post- 2030 emissions.

These temperature rises far exceed the warming projected by other studies that have analysed the INDCs. For instance, the International Energy Agency (2015) and Gütschow et al. (2015) have both projected that they would lead to a warming of 2.7°C by 2100. Indeed, both INDC scenarios described by Lomborg (2015) far exceed the temperature rises projected in ‘business as usual’ scenarios that omit the impact of the INDCs (eg Gütschow et al., 2015). This shows just how extreme the assumptions about post-2030 emissions made by Lomborg (2015) really are – they suggest that the INDCs would lead to an increase in warming compared with scenarios without the INDCs. Lomborg (2015) hides this fact by choosing to compare his scenarios against the most extreme scenario (RCP8.5) described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013), which assumes strong growth in annual emissions throughout this century, leading to carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere of more than 900 parts per million by 2100 (compared with the pre-industrial concentration of 280 parts per million and about 400 parts per million today) and a mean rise in global surface temperature of 4.3°C.
Hence, a comparison of temperature projections based on the scenarios of Lomborg (2015), which depend largely on his extreme assumptions about post-2030 emissions, with RCP8.5 cannot be reasonably presented as an investigation into “the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030”.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitu...-Ward-2015.pdf

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Ah, I see the problem. You are confusing your opinion with data. For an explanation of why it is you are in error, perhaps read this paper: Impact of Current Climate Proposals - Lomborg - 2015 - Global Policy - Wiley Online Library

Or, if you prefer the author's description of his paper, you can read it here: Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) | Bjorn Lomborg

In it, you will see the following data driven graph:

And, you might find this graph of interest, since it describes what can be accomplished if warmist loons do everything they say the want to do in terms of carbon reduction, at the cost of trillions:



So, since you appear to be wrong, would you like to acknowledge your error as I did when I made a bone head decimal mistake, or would you prefer to pretend that reality is whatever you decide it should be?

Let me guess which you will pick....

I too am disappointed in Paris. I am pleased to see you understand the severity of the problem.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I too am disappointed in Paris. I am pleased to see you understand the severity of the problem.

Whether it is a problem or not is the question. What is not in question is that even granted the warmist belief system, nothing that warmists have suggested as a solution will have the slightest impact. As noted above, the only path forward for warmists is to advocate for the killing of a few billion people, in order to save the planet. You ready for that yet, Jack?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitu...-Ward-2015.pdf

Nice try, but Lomborg answered this criticism effectively, here: Response to Bob Ward | Bjorn Lomborg.

Perhaps you missed it? The point he makes is that this critique is based on the idea that after the signatory nations of the Paris Accords meet all their obligations, unknown bureaucrats will propose and enforce unknown additional initiatives to reduce carbon by unknown amounts through unknown means.

Since the signatories are not following through on their Paris commitments, the likelihood that they will cripple their economies by doing more is delusional. But then again, delusion is at the heart of the warmist analysis.

What is so devastating about Lomborg's analysis is that it is based entirely on warmist data. Now, Lomborg probably doesn't believe the data is bogus even though it appears to be. So accepting the data as valid, you have a reduction of warming by 1/5th of one degree by 2100 under optimum circumstances, which we know already don't exist, because the nations involved aren't so clueless as to actually do the things you think they should do.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Whether it is a problem or not is the question. What is not in question is that even granted the warmist belief system, nothing that warmists have suggested as a solution will have the slightest impact. As noted above, the only path forward for warmists is to advocate for the killing of a few billion people, in order to save the planet. You ready for that yet, Jack?

Alarmist!

BTW Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.2% per annum. In 2015, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.08%.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Nice try, but Lomborg answered this criticism effectively, here: Response to Bob Ward | Bjorn Lomborg.

Perhaps you missed it? The point he makes is that this critique is based on the idea that after the signatory nations of the Paris Accords meet all their obligations, unknown bureaucrats will propose and enforce unknown additional initiatives to reduce carbon by unknown amounts through unknown means.

What is so devastating about Lomborg's analysis is that it is based entirely on warmist data. Now, Lomborg probably doesn't believe the data is bogus even though it appears to be. So accepting the data as valid, you have a reduction of warming by 1/5th of one degree by 2100 under optimum circumstances, which we know already don't exist, because the nations involved aren't so clueless as to actually do the things you think they should do.

I did not miss it. I read it before I posted. I provide the critique for others to judge, because we may not all share your opinion that Lomborg's response was "effective". I have read the studies cited by the critique I posted, as well as others that come to similar projections. I do not share your pessimism. Don't get me wrong, the Paris agreement is far short of where it should be, but the best way to solve a problem is to get started.

From one of the other studies that have projected the impact of the Paris agreements, some thoughts on what would happen if we didn't start now:

Annual decarbonisation rates of 3-4%, which would be needed to catch up from 2025 INDC levels, are feasible, but the available modelling results indicate that such a reduction would result in much higher costs, more disruption, and more challenges than if action starts now and continues in a smooth way.

That study, by the way, comes to the conclusion that the Paris agreements put us on a path to limit the warming to 2.7C, far more reduction than Lomborg suggests. But also far less than anyone wanted to achieve.

Look, we both agree that the Paris agreement is not nearly enough (as do every assessment I have read). I just don't think picking one single outlier study among many is the best way to assess its impacts.

[mr_f]

As an aside, I don't want anyone else to be confused that the model used by Lomborg is the model on which future climate projections are based. MAGICC is a very useful tool that can be used to quickly assess various emission pathways. But it is a very simple model that you can easily run on your laptop.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Now this is quite interesting:



Second, we're not likely to see the doubling of CO2 anytime soon that gets warmists' undies in such a bunch.

As the author says, whether when we reach 10 billion people in the next few decades and CO2 concentration is now around 500 ppm we all spontaneously catch on fire or enjoy a marvelously more productive planet remains to be seen,

You and I clearly have a different definition of what "anytime soon" means.

(I realize that 500 is not quite double 280, but it doesn't take much imagination to estimate what the rest of that graph would look like.)

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Using the IMO time frame of 30 years for climate data.



Happy?

That's not the same Gistemp as your previous graph. That one is Gisttemp-LOTI, Your earlier illustration used the more alarmist Gistemp-dts (green in the attached graph) which has a much higher trend.

And why have you cherrypicked 1986 as the start point when UAH goes back to 1979?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

That's not the same Gistemp as your previous graph. That one is Gisttemp-LOTI, Your earlier illustration used the more alarmist Gistemp-dts (green in the attached graph) which has a much higher trend.

And why have you cherrypicked 1986 as the start point when UAH goes back to 1979?

As I explained, I used the 30 year time frame that WMO uses for climate.

Your graph also shows continued warming and record temperatures with less disparity between data sets..

[Kenomac]

Jack,

If all your projections come true and the globe warms by a degree or two over the next hundred years or more, and there's nothing that can be done about it even if many tens of trillions of dollars are spent and wasted..... So then what? Are you going to continue to obsess during this time on the cause, or do you have some ideas on what can be done to adapt to the warming temperatures?

Again, going back to the original (5000 posts ago) question/statement.

Meanwhile, I'm waiting for our Solbian quote to come in, hopefully Orinoco will be totally energy independent three weeks from now.

Besides complaining, worrying and feverously posting, what have you done lately?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Alarmist!

BTW Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.2% per annum. In 2015, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.08%.

Great. Then based on the near perfect correlation over time between human population and atmospheric CO2, and the near 100% failure rate of climate models driven by other assumptions we can conclude that the atmospheric CO2 rate of increase will start declining as a result in a declining rate of growth of world population.

And, we won't have to spend trillions on pointless alternative energy schemes or carbon regulation to accomplish this task.

Time to close the thread - problem solved.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Great. Then based on the near perfect correlation over time between human population and atmospheric CO2, and the near 100% failure rate of climate models driven by other assumptions we can conclude that the atmospheric CO2 rate of increase will start declining as a result in a declining rate of growth of world population.

And, we won't have to spend trillions on pointless alternative energy schemes or carbon regulation to accomplish this task.

.

Nope won't work just ask the warmistas nothing short of taxing the heck out of everyone ( and lining pockets of a few) will do anything .